How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine's Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231197646
Marie Juanchich, Miroslav Sirota, Dawn Liu Holford
{"title":"How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine's Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are.","authors":"Marie Juanchich, Miroslav Sirota, Dawn Liu Holford","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231197646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>How health workers frame their communication about vaccines' probability of adverse side effects could play an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated (e.g., positive frame: side effects are <i>unlikely</i> v. negative frame: there is <i>a chance</i> of side effects). Based on the pragmatic account of framing as implicit advice, we expected that participants would report greater vaccination intentions when a trustworthy physician framed the risks positively (v. negatively), but we expected this effect would be reduced or reversed when the physician was untrustworthy.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In 4 online experiments (<i>n</i> = 191, snowball sampling and <i>n</i> = 453, 451, and 464 UK residents via Prolific; M<sub>age</sub>≈ 34 y, 70% women, 84% White British), we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how they framed the risk of adverse side effects in a scenario (i.e., a chance v. unlikely adverse side effects). Participants reported their vaccination intention, their level of distrust in health care systems, and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physicians who were trustworthy (v. untrustworthy) consistently led to an increase in vaccination intention, but the way they described adverse side effects mattered too. A positive framing of the risks given by a trustworthy physician consistently led to increased vaccination intention relative to a negative framing, but framing had no effect or the opposite effect when given by an untrustworthy physician. The exception to this trend occurred in unvaccinated individuals in experiment 3, following serious concerns about one of the COVID vaccines. In that study, unvaccinated participants responded more favorably to the negative framing of the trustworthy physician.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Trusted sources should use positive framing to foster vaccination acceptance. However, in a situation of heightened fears, a negative framing-attracting more attention to the risks-might be more effective.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>How health workers frame their communication about a vaccine's probability of adverse side effects plays an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated.In 4 experiments, we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how the physician framed the risk of adverse side effects of a COVID vaccine.Positive framing given by a trustworthy physician promoted vaccination intention but had null effect or did backfire when given by an untrustworthy physician.The effect occurred over and above participants' attitude toward the health care system, risk perceptions, and beliefs in COVID misinformation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231197646","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: How health workers frame their communication about vaccines' probability of adverse side effects could play an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated (e.g., positive frame: side effects are unlikely v. negative frame: there is a chance of side effects). Based on the pragmatic account of framing as implicit advice, we expected that participants would report greater vaccination intentions when a trustworthy physician framed the risks positively (v. negatively), but we expected this effect would be reduced or reversed when the physician was untrustworthy.

Design: In 4 online experiments (n = 191, snowball sampling and n = 453, 451, and 464 UK residents via Prolific; Mage≈ 34 y, 70% women, 84% White British), we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how they framed the risk of adverse side effects in a scenario (i.e., a chance v. unlikely adverse side effects). Participants reported their vaccination intention, their level of distrust in health care systems, and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs.

Results: Physicians who were trustworthy (v. untrustworthy) consistently led to an increase in vaccination intention, but the way they described adverse side effects mattered too. A positive framing of the risks given by a trustworthy physician consistently led to increased vaccination intention relative to a negative framing, but framing had no effect or the opposite effect when given by an untrustworthy physician. The exception to this trend occurred in unvaccinated individuals in experiment 3, following serious concerns about one of the COVID vaccines. In that study, unvaccinated participants responded more favorably to the negative framing of the trustworthy physician.

Conclusions: Trusted sources should use positive framing to foster vaccination acceptance. However, in a situation of heightened fears, a negative framing-attracting more attention to the risks-might be more effective.

Highlights: How health workers frame their communication about a vaccine's probability of adverse side effects plays an important role in people's intentions to be vaccinated.In 4 experiments, we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how the physician framed the risk of adverse side effects of a COVID vaccine.Positive framing given by a trustworthy physician promoted vaccination intention but had null effect or did backfire when given by an untrustworthy physician.The effect occurred over and above participants' attitude toward the health care system, risk perceptions, and beliefs in COVID misinformation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医生应该如何界定疫苗不良副作用的风险?这取决于他们的可信度。
背景:卫生工作者如何就疫苗的不良副作用概率进行沟通,可能对人们接种疫苗的意图起着重要作用(例如,积极框架:副作用不太可能;消极框架:有副作用的可能性)。基于将框架视为隐含建议的务实解释,我们预计,当一位值得信赖的医生对风险进行积极的框架(v.消极的框架)时,参与者会报告更大的疫苗接种意向,但当医生不值得信赖时,我们预计这种影响会减少或逆转。设计:在4个在线实验中(n = 191,雪球采样和n = 453451和464名英国居民通过Prolific;Mage≈34 y,70%为女性,84%为英国白人),我们操纵了医生的可信度,以及他们如何在一种情况下确定不良副作用的风险(即偶然与不太可能的不良副作用)。参与者报告了他们的疫苗接种意图、对医疗保健系统的不信任程度以及新冠肺炎阴谋信念。结果:值得信赖(v.不值得信赖)的医生一直导致疫苗接种意愿的增加,但他们描述不良副作用的方式也很重要。与消极框架相比,值得信赖的医生对风险的积极框架始终会导致疫苗接种意愿的增加,但当由不值得信任的医生提供时,框架没有效果或相反的效果。这一趋势的例外发生在实验3中未接种疫苗的个体身上,此前人们对其中一种新冠疫苗表示严重担忧。在那项研究中,未接种疫苗的参与者对值得信赖的医生的负面评价反应更积极。结论:可靠的来源应该使用积极的框架来促进疫苗接种的接受。然而,在恐惧加剧的情况下,吸引更多人关注风险的负面框架可能更有效。亮点:卫生工作者如何就疫苗的不良副作用概率进行沟通,对人们接种疫苗的意愿起着重要作用。在4个实验中,我们操纵了医生的可信度,以及医生如何确定新冠肺炎疫苗的不良副作用风险。值得信赖的医生给出的积极框架促进了疫苗接种的意图,但在不值得信赖的医师给出时无效或适得其反。这种影响发生在参与者对医疗保健系统的态度、风险认知和对新冠肺炎错误信息的信念之上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Shared Decision Making Is in Need of Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Studies. Reframing SDM Using Implementation Science: SDM Is the Intervention. Incorporating Social Determinants of Health in Infectious Disease Models: A Systematic Review of Guidelines. Calculating the Expected Net Benefit of Sampling for Survival Data: A Tutorial and Case Study. The Use of Nudge Strategies in Improving Physicians' Prescribing Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1